The Confirmation Mess: Cleaning Up the Federal Appointments Process

by Stephen L. Carter and Nelson W. Smith, Geoffrey; Polsby

Book Overview

Stephen L. Carter tells what's wrong with our confirmation process, explains how it got that way, and suggests what we can do to fix it. Using the most recent confirmation battles as examples, Carter argues that our confirmation process will continue to be bloody until we develop a more balanced attitude toward public service and the Supreme Court by coming to recognize that human beings have flaws, commit sins, and can be redeemed.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0465013643
• ISBN13: 9780465013647
• Release Date: May 1994
• Publisher: Basic Books
• Length: 272 Pages
• Weight: 1.00 lbs.

Customer Reviews

Excellent analysis of the federal confirmation process

It's been about nine years since Clarence Thomas was narrowly confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court, which makes it enough time to be able to reflect upon the passionate debate over whether he deserved the nomination/confirmation.Not that Justice Thomas is the sole focus of this insightful book by Stephen Carter (a professor of law at Yale). Rather, Carter is interested in analyzing what has gone wrong with the nomination/confirmation process. His primary case studies include the rejection of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court and Lani Guinier for Deputy Attorney General (head of the Civil Rights Division), as well as the successful confirmations of Justice Thomas and Justice Thurgood Marshall (who Carter believes should have been confirmed easily, rather than subjected to ridiculous attacks by Southern senators).In Carter's view, the central problem with the process is that candidates are presumed to be qualified, with the search on to root out disqualifying pasts. Thus, Zoe Baird, nominated for the Attorney General, was withdrawn when it turned out that she had a "nanny problem." Should she have been disqualified for that? According to Carter, maybe, maybe not. But the sequence and emphasis of questions is all wrong.The process, he argues, should work something like this: (1) do not presume that the candidate is qualified; (2) if a potential disqualifying factor arises, determine how serious it is -- unqualified is uncurable, minor ethical lapse may be easily curable, and other matters in between.Moreover, Carter's analysis is non-partisan. He aptly demonstrates that Guinier's candidacy went down in flames because her academic writing was grossly distorted (if even read) -- as was Bork's.Finally, Carter is a clear and direct writer, and lay persons as well as those involved in law will find this a fascinating analysis of the nomination/confirmation process.